1002. MrSocko - Jan. 17, 1999 - 4:17 PM PT
Hahahahahaha! "DanDildo": very funny, even if it is a little playgroundish. By the way, I have no idea what the "ten basic sentence patterns" means, still less how one goes about acquiring "a certain reverence for the verb."
1003. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 17, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
ERRATA (Message #1000)
"But were you using 'lingual' in the phonetics sense?"
1004. darkviolet - Jan. 17, 1999 - 4:29 PM PT
"b) because they speak provincially and generally haven't been required to do otherwise."
One may actually be pressured to speak provincially by one's family and community. I think open resentment of non-provencial speech is a strong contributing factor to class stratification. (The "who the fuck do you think you are" in my family's faces after I started reading at a college level and talking about what I was learning was crystal clear. It still is, for that matter.)
1005. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 17, 1999 - 4:33 PM PT
darkviolet/toonces/azure/bombolurina
Don't forget to say "Eid Mubarak!" tomorrow to any Muslims you run into.
1006. darkviolet - Jan. 17, 1999 - 4:45 PM PT
Thanks, I will.
1007. darkviolet - Jan. 17, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
Wait a minute, "Eid Mubarak?"
1008. darkviolet - Jan. 17, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
Does that mean "fart on your feast" or something like that?
1009. resonance - Jan. 17, 1999 - 4:52 PM PT
"resonance (Message #992): Gibberish. Of course phonetics is part of linguistics. But what were you using "lingual" in the phonetics sense? Obviously not."
Um, yes, I was, PE. Lest I use a big, pointy word here to describe the device, I'll just say that I was using a component as an example of the whole. AS far as your Johnny One-Note stance on my misuse of words, it more often than not boils down to an imperfect understanding of what I was saying on *your* part (married, of course, to a childish need to attack others via pedantic quibbles) rather than a faulty word choice on my own behalf. It really speaks volumes about you that the only offense you can muster against my words usually consists of weak hairsplitting and specious ad hominems. It's kind of amusing, actually, because it is quite easy to predict your reactions in situations like these. Somewhat murkier, but nonetheless distinguishable, is your motivation. I ought to be flattered, I suppose, except the necessary reverence is lacking.
1010. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 17, 1999 - 4:53 PM PT
Eid, or Eid-ul-Fitr, is the end of Ramadan, the day of fast-breaking. "Eid Mubarak" means "Happy Eid" or "Blessed Eid".
The next day is Eid-ul-Adha, the day commemorating Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Ismail (Ishmael).
1011. darkviolet - Jan. 17, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
Thanks, PE. I didn't think the Egyptian president would be named something offensive to Islam, but I wasn't sure the connection between whatever his name translates to and Eid was appropriate. I thought I might have become a victim of your "cruel" sense of humor.
1012. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 17, 1999 - 5:03 PM PT
Message #1009: Prolixity in the defence of turgidity: a modern chivalry.
Your use of "lingual" is unambiguously inappropriate and pretentious. You can protest all you want that I am missing some nuance in your meaning, but the nuance simply doesn't exist. In fact, the phonetics sense of "lingual" would make drivel out of your verbiage: "I'm not a structuralist -- I don't think that we must understand our...skills [formed by the tongue] in order to understand our world."
1013. resonance - Jan. 17, 1999 - 5:15 PM PT
Lingual skills -- the unconscious competence which allows us to form sounds and repeat them. A necessary component of understanding linguistic competence -- which is a necessary part of structuralism -- is the science of how the interplay between association, understanding, and repetition works. You don't know what you're talking about, and looking sillier by the minute.
1014. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 17, 1999 - 5:56 PM PT
Message #1013
Well, I asked you for a bloody source a while ago, and you haven't given me one. Well, where is it. I will take it all my criticisms back if you find one.
1015. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 17, 1999 - 6:21 PM PT
pseudoerasmus Message #989:
"Actually, I would like a source for the use of "lingual" from linguistics."
Well, there's the audio-lingual method of language teaching, but that doesn't help Resonance either.
Message #1010:
Actually, Eid-ul-adha" is the high point of the Haj pilgrimage, and this year will take place on March 28. It is not the second day of the "Ed-ul-fitr" celebrations.
1016. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 17, 1999 - 6:24 PM PT
Sheesh, three typos in one post. Let me try that again:
Actually, "Eid-ul-adha" is the high point of the Haj pilgrimage, which will take place this year on March 28. It is not the second day of the "Eid-ul-fitr" celebrations.
1017. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 17, 1999 - 6:29 PM PT
Message #1015: On Eid-ul-adha, you're quite right. It's during the month of zil-hajj.
1018. resonance - Jan. 17, 1999 - 8:17 PM PT
You want me to source a linguistic use of 'lingual' when you've already given the specialized, phonetics definition of the word from the OED? Come on, dammit, be reasonable.
My linguistics texts are now in storage, so I am afraid I can't source for you -- the only one I have here doesn't really treat with phonetics, it's just an essay text on learning and association. But, really, PE, you yourself sourced the frickin' definition that answers your own question. Quit grousing.
1019. CoralReef - Jan. 17, 1999 - 8:25 PM PT
And while you're at it, quit fox-hunting and polo playing too!
1020. resonance - Jan. 17, 1999 - 8:31 PM PT
Tumblerjaguar strikes again.
1021. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 17, 1999 - 9:12 PM PT
Message #1018
Idiot. The phonetics sense of "lingual" that I cited from the OED refers to a kind of sound made by the tongue. In other words, "lingual" is just another category of sound, like "dental", "guttural", "nasal", or "labial". But according to the OED, it's a term no longer used, except in reference to Sanskrit. In this context, "lingual skills" is like "nasal skills" -- a gibberish phrase.
You are TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT.
1022. MrSocko - Jan. 17, 1999 - 9:41 PM PT
Hahahaha! Many, many years from now, resonance, when both you and pseudo have left school, you will send a postcard thanking him for his sound advice to you.
1023. resonance - Jan. 17, 1999 - 10:55 PM PT
Oh, somebody put a stick in his mouth or he'll end up biting his own tongue off.
PE, this isn't a hard concept. I'm not going to bother presenting myself as a linguistic authority, because I'm not. I, however, have studied in the field -- something you have not -- and in my studies we used the word 'lingual'. And if you think about it, just a little, you'll see why. Tongue positioning is crucial to a majority of phonemes -- try going through the vowels without moving your tongue, and then the other phonemes, and you'll see what I mean in a hurry.
I really fail to see how I'm 'totally full of shit' for mentioning the manner in which we unconsciously learn these different positionings as a part of a linguistic education. One could, in fact, conclude that *you're* the one who suffers from that condition, given your rant about how 'lingual' is such a poor word to use when alluding to structuralism.
1024. resonance - Jan. 17, 1999 - 10:56 PM PT
Now, pay attention, PE. This is important.
Why is it that you're so lividly vehement about this? Could it be that, yet again, you have leapt upon a phrase of mine, incorrectly deduced what I was talking about, and purported to deride me for yet another 'near-malapropism'? And now that you're caught out you think that an all-caps insult is going to carry your point? It won't wash, El Exigente.
And what was your point, earlier -- that, ah, I used 'lingual' where I obviously meant 'language', and that since 'lingual' didn't mean what I intended it to mean it was a near malapropism, something you claim I'm given to?
Webster's has the following definitions:
adj.
1) of the tongue
2) of language or languages
3) articulated by using the tongue
-n (phonet.) a lingual sound, as l or t.
So, whether I originally meant what I say I meant, or what *you* in your ineffable wisdom say I meant, 'lingual' is a perfectly apt word to use. And, once again (heuristic, anyone? Suborn, anyone?) we see that you have jumped upon a word I have used, quickly and annoyingly pronounced it unfit, proceeded with one of your characteristic monologues on the subject of prose and turgidity and Resonance.... and, once again, been exactly wrong. But you won't acknowledge that, also true to form and pathos. You'd be so much more effective if you knew what the fuck you were talking about. You don't. Give over.
1025. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 18, 1999 - 1:39 AM PT
Resonance:
I'm not interested in getting in the middle of a spat, but I would like to point out one simple fact:
"Tongue positioning is crucial to a majority of phonemes -- try going through the vowels without moving your tongue, and then the other phonemes, and you'll see what I mean in a hurry."
In fact, it is so crucial that the position of the tongue is what we label in linguistics: velar, palatal, alveolar, dental. There is no such thing as a lingual point of articulation. Points of articulation are where the tongue is at any given time. To say "lingual-palatal" for a sound articulated at the palate would be absurd -- what else would be articulating such a sound. Almost all phonenes are articulated by the tongue (with the exception of glottal sounds (h), bilabial sounds (p, b, m), and labiodental sounds (f,v)). Sounds articulated completely by the tongue are called vowels or liquids (l, r).
I've been active in the field of linguistics for 25 years, and have never come across "lingual" as a phonetic term. I am certain it exists, but it is by no means a common (or useful) term.
A look at the index of William A. Smalley's 500-page "Manual of Articulatory Phonetics," the phonetician's bible, shows no listing at all for "lingual."
1026. BobaFett - Jan. 18, 1999 - 1:54 AM PT
Irving:
Interesting!
But reading you post, I couldn't help but think that sounds made entirely by the toungue like l or r could usefully be called "linguals." Like, "pure linguals."
1027. BobaFett - Jan. 18, 1999 - 1:55 AM PT
... I'm not saying they ARE called linguals, mind you; but perhaps Res had a textbook with slightly unconventional terminology.
1028. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 1:56 AM PT
(sigh)
I know the terminology, Irv. Fricatives, affricates, sibilants, sonorants, alveopalatal, aspirants, yadda yadda yadda. I don't know why you feel motivated to bring them up. Why are you bringing that up, Irv?
AS far as the prevalence of the term 'lingual' in the field of linguistics at large -- I, of course, will bow to your greater knowledge of the field and its terminology. As I said, all I had was some coursework, certainly not twenty-five years worth of it. (I'll have you know, it's hard for me not to turn that into a dig at your, ah, seniority). All I will say is that *we* did use the term lingual -- as a matter of fact, I remember turning in a paper with the monstrous word 'linguistical' hurriedly penned in an essay, and getting it back amended to 'lingual'. AAaaaaand, as far as being a proper or improper word choice, well, Noah Webster and I are old school in this matter -- which is the point of this whole ridiculous charade anyway.
1029. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:01 AM PT
Hell, I even remember studying 'lingual position charts' for the vowels -- front, center, back, tensed, lax, high, low. The only thing that didn't have to do with the tongue was lip rounding, and that didn't come into play often.
1030. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:04 AM PT
Boba:
But there are perfectly good terms already. R and L are liquids. Other sounds created solely by the tongue are vowels.
Res:
"Why are you bringing that up, Irv?"
Because it was on topic, Res.
What does "lingual" mean to you, then? What new meaning does it convey that another word doesn't cover? As I indicated earlier, the only common use I know of "lingual" is in "audio-lingual." Show me that there is a another good, meaningful use of the word.
If you had submitted a paper to me with "linguistical" in it, I would have chosen "linguistic" as the preferred term (assuming, of course, that that is what the context called for).
1031. BobaFett - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:04 AM PT
anyone who uses "lingual" when "linguistic" should meant should spend less time looking up third definitions in a dictionary and more time reading and listening to what vocabulary people actually employ.
1032. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:08 AM PT
Res:
I've never come across the term "lingual position charts," but I'll buy that. I've always called those tongue position charts, which seems somehow clearer to me.
1033. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:22 AM PT
"What does "lingual" mean to you, then? What new meaning does it convey that another word doesn't cover? "
Well, cripes, Irv, I should think it's really sort of obvious what I think 'lingual' means. Of or dealing with the tongue -- and, by extension, of language. If that's not good enough, well, I sourced four definitions, and they all seem reasonable to me. The term carries the sort of neuromuscular connotation that some branches of linguistics are concerned with -- this is correct, right, Irv, that some fields of linguistics are concerned with *how* we make sounds, and *how* we learn to make them? -- and, therefore, carries a connotation relevant to discussing transformational grammar in the context of structuralism. Thus, if you're looking for some reason as to why one might use 'lingual' instead of, say, 'language' -- there you go.
I'd be lying, of course, if I said I was thinking in these exact terms when I chose the word. I was thinking just of the way we form phonemes and the science that has sprung up around this process. I was thinking of my own training.
Now. Does that meet your requirements for 'good, meaningful use' of the word? If not, then please do tell me why it is that if 'lingual' has a meaning 'of language or languages' *and* 'articulated by using the tongue' that it wasn't an apt word to use in a discussion about teaching grammar and the reasons for and against certain methods?
1034. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:24 AM PT
This was a molehill just a few hours ago.
1035. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:30 AM PT
Well, at least we made this a hot topic. If you answer I will respond tomorrow.
1036. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:37 AM PT
It's still a molehill, Res.
But as far as I'm concerned, using lingual to mean "of language or languages" is uncommon at best, especially when there is a better word available, and using it to mean "articulated by the tongue" is meaningless for the reasons I gave earlier. I don't doubt that both uses exist, and both are listed in my dictionary, although the former is listed merely as ":LINGUISTIC," which I take to mean carries the identical meaning. According to my dictionary, lingual seems more common as a medical term (~ inflammation, a ~ blood vessel).
Please continue to use lingual in the senses you have -- they are acceptable -- unless you strive for clarity.
1037. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:20 AM PT
Resonance (Message #1024)
"Webster's has the following definitions: adj. 1) of the tongue; 2) of language or languages; 3) articulated by using the tongue -n (phonet.) a lingual sound, as l or t."
This is your original sentence from Message #975: "I'm not a structuralist -- I don't think that we must understand our lingual skills in order to understand our world."
#1 is not your intended meaning, unless you meant to convey some sexual information. #3 makes gibberish of the sentence. #2 is semantically apt, but pretentious, turgid and gratuitous and therefore rhetorically inapt. Yet you have the temerity to continue to claim "'lingual' is a perfectly apt word to use". What rot. The phrase that is most apt in every sense is "language skills". Please refer to my Message #984.
Message #1024: "And, once again (heuristic, anyone? Suborn, anyone?) we see that you have jumped upon a word I have used, quickly and annoyingly pronounced it unfit, proceeded with one of your characteristic monologues on the subject of prose and turgidity and Resonance.... and, once again, been exactly wrong."
More drivel. You did NOT use "heuristic" or "suborn" correctly in the Capital Punishment thread -- your usages were in fact outright malapropisms. (We can revisit that topic if you wish, if and when that thread sees the light of day in the fray archives.) But thanks for reminding me of those words. I would add them to my list of pretentious Resonant blunders in Message #1000.
1038. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:22 AM PT
Oops, not #984, but my Message #982.
1039. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:25 AM PT
Message #1033: Just stop this parade of pathetic attempts at self-exculpation. By "lingual skills" you meant nothing more than "language skills" but you are now scurrying to introduce in retrospect all kinds of nuances and technical senses into your usage order to justify the pointless use of "lingual".
1040. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:26 AM PT
...in order to justify...
1041. MrSocko - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:30 AM PT
Message #1039:
Perhaps he's merely making lingualistic distinctions.
1042. DanDillon - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:50 AM PT
Seguine,
While I actually have very little desire to respond to your most recent posts--tiresome, each and all--it behooves me to attempt putting an end to this discussion.
I have no idea if you've ever been on "the other side of the desk," but just how teacher-centered a classroom do you prefer? Has everything been accomplished by *conscious explication* where you've leanred (taught)? Ownership being one of the most valuable experiences from a student's standpoint, I heartly believe in limiting my direct intrsuction to an absolute minimum. The student armed with his own intuitive knowledge of the structure of English, he works with examples, mind-stretching exercises and other such activities that I furnish so that he may discover for himself how our language works.
I have willingly acknowledged that the native speaker possesses a thorough knowledge of English grammar. Despite this, he often doesn't know where, when or how mistakes in his writing occur, written being very different from spoken English. Once he has discovered how to detect and therefore prevent such mistakes, he is bound to become a better writer. My suggestions regarding a famiarity with the ten basic sentence patterns and a revernece for the verb--a phrase I grow to like more and more each time I write it--are simply the results of my having taught students these things and having watched them produce stellar essays as a result: fragments have disappeared; t-units have lengthened; rhetorical and stylistic issues have been addressed. And let me tell you, for a bunch of high school students who couldn't point to New York City on a map, that's quite enough.
Ho-hum.
1043. Seguine - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:38 AM PT
Dildo, at this point I have no idea what you are advocating or not advocating as far as instruction is concerned. But I have become convinced that you are a man under 5'10" in height.
"My suggestions...are simply the results of my having taught
students these things and having watched them produce stellar essays as a result: fragments have disappeared; t-units have lengthened;
rhetorical and stylistic issues have been addressed. And let me tell
you, for a bunch of high school students who couldn't point to New York City on a map, that's quite enough."
Is it?
1044. CoralReef - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
What is a t-unit?
1045. Seguine - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
Resonance: "The only thing that didn't have to do with the tongue was lip rounding, and that didn't come into play often."
Someone stop me, please, before I commit a lewd act in the Fray.
1046. Seguine - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:49 AM PT
PE, Message #1037, I believe you neglected to list "pragma" and "lanf-logic", definitions for which I have never encountered.
1047. CoralReef - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:54 AM PT
"Praxis" should be given a pass though, as it's both a name of a rock group and comes up in Marxist literature and therefore it was inevitable that it would be used by someone in the fray.
1048. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:54 AM PT
"Pragma", I thought, was a good and useful neologism, in analogy with "dogma/dogmatic".
1049. wonkers2 - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:05 AM PT
PLUCK YEW!
Before the battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory, announced their intention to cut off the middle fingers of all captured English soldiers in order to make it impossible for them to draw their renowned English longbows, thus rendering the English archers incapable of fighting ever again.
The famous English longbow was made of the native English yew tree, and the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew." Much to the dismay of the French, the English won an upset victory and began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers, shouting, "See we can still pluck yew! PLUCK YEW!"
Over the years various folk etymologies have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since "pluck yew" is difficult to say as is "peasant mother pheasant pluckers," (the source of the feathers used on the longbow arrows), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative "F." Thus, the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also believed that the pheasant feather fletching on the arrows gave rise to the expression "giving or flipping the bird." Anon.-net.
1050. DanDillon - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:21 AM PT
Seguine,
I don't know exactly why--I can't quite put my finger on it--but your posts make me sad.
1051. DanDillon - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:25 AM PT
CR,
A t-unit is the smallest unit of a passage that can be puncuated as an independent sentence. No fragments can be created by t-unit divisions.
The procedure of dividing a passage into t-units illustrated:
"You deal five cards to each player, then the dealer will ask you if you want to trade any number of cards. After all the players have traded, you start the bidding. The players stop bidding, and the fun begins. You show the other players your cards. You may have won, or someone else may have. It all depends on the cards."
Total of 9 t-units (from 6 sentences in passage):
You deal five cards to each player/
then the dealer will ask you if you want to trade any number of cards/
After all the players have traded, you start the bidding/
The players stop bidding/
and the fun begins/
You show the other players your cards/
You may have won/
or someone else may have/
It all depends on the cards/
A linguist named Kellogg Hunt performed a study back in 1964 that focused on t-unit length in the writings of fourth, eighth and twlefth graders. The study revealed the following mean numbers of words per t-unit for each grade level. (The average number of words per t-unit was determined by dividing the total number of words in a passage by the number of actual t-units.)
Grade:.............4..........8...........12
t-unit length:....8.6.......11.5.......14.4
wonkers2,
Cute, charming even, but incorrect. "Fuck" comes from German, plain and simple.
1052. phillipdavid - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT
I thought FUCK came from passes the English sailors received when in port: Fornication Under Consent of the King.
1053. DanDillon - Jan. 18, 1999 - 11:28 AM PT
Actually (how many times does this etymology need to spring up?), "fuck" was originally a very acceptable word as it was recorded in John Florio's *A World of Words* (1598). Despite some people's belief that the word derives from the police blotter entry "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge," as well as many other possibilities offered here in this thread, the famous four-letter "fuck" may remotely come from the Latin *futuere* for the act of sexual intercourse. However, most probably, it comes from the Old German *ficken/fucken*, which means "to strike or penetrate." Eric Partridge points out that the German word is almost certainly related to the Latin words for "pugulist," "puncture," and "prick" throught the root *pug*. Before "fuck" came into the English word stock in the late 15th century--its first recorded use is in 1503--"swyve" was the verb most commonly used for "fucking." "Fuck" began to become more rare in print in the 18th c. when human experience began to be disguised behind a veil of decency, and the last dictionary it was recrded in up until recent times is Francis Grose's *Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue* (1785), in the form of "f**k." The OED banned it (just as it banned "cunt") and this made the word's acceptance even rarer. Though great writers such as Lawrence, Joyce and Miller tried to restore "fuck" to its proper place in print, it wasn't until 1960 that Grove Press in America won a court case that permitted publishers to print the word legally for the first time in centuries. The book containing the word was D.H. Lawrence's *Lady Chatterley's Lover* written in 1928.
-from R. Hendrickson's *Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins*
1054. Seguine - Jan. 18, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT
<MSG=1048><BR><BR>Creativity tends to require excursions into pointlessness. If you're going to give him "pragma", then you'll simply have to to excuse all the rest.<BR><BR>Incidentally, some of us have speculated that "pragma" is what collects under the foreskin of a male who masturbates while reading William James.
1055. Seguine - Jan. 18, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
"I don't know exactly why--I can't quite put my finger on it--but your
posts make me sad."
Place all ten fingers on your sadness and own it.
1056. chloel - Jan. 18, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
Yo, end-users, are we going to have to # 'pragma' into your heads?
"The #pragma directives offer a way for each compiler to offer machine- and operating-system-specific features while retaining overall compatibility with the C and C++ languages. Pragmas are machine- or operating-system-specific by definition, and are usually different for every compiler."
-_Preprocessor Reference_, Visual C++
BNF 4-Ever! I (Heart) Your Computer! I (Brain) Kittens!
1057. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
"Just stop this parade of pathetic attempts at self-exculpation. By "lingual skills" you meant nothing more than "language skills" but you are now scurrying to introduce in retrospect all kinds of nuances and technical senses into your usage order to justify the pointless use of "lingual"."
Don't be stupid. I even said to Irv that I wasn't thinking of the subtle nuances of the word when I sued it -- I gave them because he asked for them. However, you're really going to have to explain why it is that 'lingual skills', where 'lingual' refers to the tongue and 'lingual skills' can in the context be reasonably construed to refer to the role of the tongue in articulation and mimicry, why the usage is gibberish. You can't read today or something? Or do you just have a bee in your bonnet? They're going around, you know, but that doesn't make you any less of a fool for this last series of attacks. The end result is that you claimed I used an inapt word and the most that's been proven here -- not by you, I might add -- is that there are more common ways to say it. That's a far cry from your whining rant.
'Language skills' is vague. You still don't know what you're talking about. Go away.
1058. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
When'd I use 'praxis'?
I mean, I know the word -- I don't know about Marxist lit, I don't really read much at all of that and didn't see it there, but it's common in education literature.
1059. wonkers2 - Jan. 18, 1999 - 3:10 PM PT
Cap'n Dirty sez, "Seguine, what about me? There's only room fer five fingers!"
1060. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 3:39 PM PT
Resonance (Message #1057): I believe pretty much everyone is persuaded by my criticisms of your diction.
This afternoon, I checked three linguistics references:
Peters Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics
David Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
David Crystal, Cambridge Encylopaedia of Language
Each one defined "lingual" as an adjective pertaining to a class of sounds made with the tongue, such as a trilled R in Spanish. In linguistics and phonetics, "lingual" is therefore a reference to one of many possible classes of sounds produced by the human speech organ.
It is now up to you to explain why your Message #975 has anything remotely to do with the "role of the tongue in articulation and mimicry", as opposed to the role of the throat (guttural) or the lips (labial) or the nose (nasal) or the teeth (dental) in articulation and mimicry. As far as I can tell given my profound ignorance of linguistics, speech is produced with many different classes of sounds. So if you insist that you were using a linguistic term, then you might just as easily have substituted "guttural skills" or "dental skills" and there would be no difference.
By the way, after you persuade us that your post has something remotely to do with the "role of the tongue" in articulation and mimicry, you should then let us know why you brought up tongue skills in the middle of a discussion about classroom instruction in grammar and composition.
1061. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 3:45 PM PT
This is the state of Resonance's dilemma.
If he claims that in Message #975 he was using "lingual" in the technical linguistic sense, the usage strongly verges on the malapropism. For "lingual" is a sound, and no further nuance or technical meaning is available. One wonders why, if he was talking about speech & mimicry, he had to single out lingual sounds.
If he claims that he merely meant "lingual" as a synonym for "linguistic" or as an adjective for "language", then the usage is turgid and pretentious.
1062. ScottLoar - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:07 PM PT
This juvenile exchange on "lingual" between two adults with far, far too much time on their hands is friggin' pathetic.
1063. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:14 PM PT
Yes, it is juvenile. But I have spent at most 30 minutes on the "lingual" question. Surely it is worth the fun of punching Resonance.
1064. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
Oh, fuck it. I've given dictionary definitions which fit either meaning. You aren't punching anyone, you're just pushing an idiotic line. No one else has called my words inapt -- the closest is Irv with his statements upon the prevalence of the terms. Really, PE, your life must seriously suck. I imagine you're having fun, but the real fun is seeing you expose yourself in the manner that you have -- the extent of narcissistic delusion, alone, is sort of breathtaking. And Loar may be right about all this exchange, but I'm far from the point where I'll take this sort of nonsense from you -- especially when it's so baseless. So I guess I'll be juvenile some more.
The fact that you repeatedly jeer at my words (oh, what utter rot! Why would anyone mention linguistic phenomena in a discussion about the validity of teaching transformative grammar, when the idea is whether or not teaching a grammar that's aligned with our natural method of speech is helpful? It boggles the mind!) doesn't lead me to believe that repeating them will help much. The definitions are there. As far as whether or not 'lingual' is a word used in linguistics, well, you won't take my word for it, apparently, but Irv accepted my usage when I framed it for him correctly (though he favored other words).
But you, by all means, go on and sit there glued to your interface and insist that I'm being pretentious or malapropistic. You must truly be hell-bent on proving that you don't care what others might think of you, because you really do reveal yourself as an abject loser with this consistent harping and character attacks. Don't worry, though -- I don't feel sorry for you. Though I ought to, because it's pretty clear what you are.
1065. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:34 PM PT
Well, I'm not going to wade through those words. In the final analysis, however, Resonance is still a pretentious malaprop.
1066. CoralReef - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:00 PM PT
Res, "theobliminarch" used Praxis in the most recent Feminism thread and he was thought to be you.
Hey, at least you didn't use "self-exculpation", instead of "defending yourself" or other words which, while not malapropisms, could hardly be said to be necessary and unpretentious.
1067. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:08 PM PT
You think "defending yourself" is a perfect substitute for "self-exculpation"?
I am not opposed to more complex words or phrasing. But they should add something, whether in rhetoric, rhythm or nuance.
1068. CoralReef - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:18 PM PT
No, it's not a perfect substitute, but you get my point. While some may be guilty of pretentious malapropisms others may be guilty of pretentious aptness. Surely the latter is preferable, but *if* pretentiousness is deemed to be a fault then the latter is not without problems.
1069. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:19 PM PT
pseud:
I agree with your approach to effective alveopalatal skills.
1070. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:24 PM PT
Message #1068
As far as I'm concerned, "pretentious aptness" is a contradition in terms.
1071. chloel - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:27 PM PT
And a tradition interminable, and....
1072. CoralReef - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:29 PM PT
My American Heritage dictionary has the second meaning of pretentiousness as "Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious." which is not IMO contradictory with being apt.
George Will and William F. Buckley: pretentiously apt.
Allan Bloom: unpretentiously apt.
1073. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:38 PM PT
Well, I don't think a word or phrasing which is apt can be truly pretentious. But if otherwise, there it is.
I don't think pretentious diction or language is a problem. Loar's prose is surely pretentious by yours and other fraygrants' lights (though not by mine). Yet I don't think I have ever seen a protruding pustule of inaptness among his words as I have seen among Resonance's.
1074. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:40 PM PT
ERRATA (Message #1073)
I don't think pretentious diction or language PER SE is a problem. It's pretentious & inapt or pretentious & unclear that's the problem.
1075. CoralReef - Jan. 18, 1999 - 6:53 PM PT
Well, "pretentious aptness" was sort of a neologism. A way to describe a kind of writing that uses words correctly but uses unnecessarily showy words.
But that's fine in the fray, it's part of the fun here.
And I usually don't have any problem with Loar's prose other than his use of corrigendum instead of OOPS.
1076. ptboya - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:41 PM PT
First chance I've had to lurk for months and I'm pleased to see nothing has changed. Prescriptivism reigns supreme among the ineptly presumptuous.
1077. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:43 PM PT
Where? I thought the descriptivists had been ganging up on the lone classroom prescriptivist -- Dillon.
1078. ptboya - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:10 PM PT
I"ll take that as a "who me?" my man.
1079. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:14 PM PT
Well, I was assuming that as with other words your understanding of prescriptivism and descriptivism was slightly off...
1080. ptboya - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:18 PM PT
Hahahaha! Touché. Though "slightly off" is a bit mild. Surely you can dig deeper.
1081. DanDillon - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:01 AM PT
Let the record show that I resent Message #1077 with everthing I've got. The thorough misunderstanding and misapplication of terms around here has been nearly criminal, and this sphincter spazm of a post is exemplary of such a crime.
1082. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 19, 1999 - 9:22 AM PT
Message #1081 is what I call ex spinchtero speech.
1083. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 19, 1999 - 9:23 AM PT
Dillon speaks exsphincteraneously!
1084. brightidea - Jan. 19, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
Pretentious prose is a subjective matter, like preferring wine over champagne. Therefore, this threat is as subjective as one can imagine.
1085. Seguine - Jan. 19, 1999 - 3:44 PM PT
Message #1082
Now *that* was a felicitous neologism.
1086. DanDillon - Jan. 20, 1999 - 5:25 AM PT
What do they do with the words once they're deleted?
1087. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 22, 1999 - 8:40 AM PT
Looks like it's time for a new topic for this thread.
Is anyone interested in talking about The Languages of the World?
1088. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 22, 1999 - 9:36 AM PT
The International thread of late has been a much better language thread than the Language thread. Plus, it lacks Dillon.
1089. PincherMartin - Jan. 22, 1999 - 12:40 PM PT
I am re-posting this material from the _News of the Day_ thread.
Irving:
About last night's question on the quiz:
"The main threat to Switzerland's security comes from international terrorism and the spillover effect of ethnic violence in the Balkans. Following inflows of refugees and immigrants in the 1990s, Serbo-Croat has become the third most widely spoken language in Switzerland after
German and French."
(Source: March 7th, 1998 Financial Times, written by Tony Barber)
Note: I still find this hard to believe since Italian is supposedly spoken by 10% of the population. Can Serbo-Croat speakers possibly make up more than 10% of the Swiss population? It doesn't seem possible.
1090. DanDillon - Jan. 22, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
PM,
I find the statement "Serbo-Croat has become the third most widely spoken language in Switzerland" rather incredible myself. Any clue where this Tony Barber got his information? Even Rhaetian (aka Ladin, Romansh, Grishun, etc.), a *distant* fourth, accounts for some 75,000 Swiss folk's native language. Just how many refugees have made their way to Switzerland this decade anyway?
1091. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 22, 1999 - 3:10 PM PT
Well, Germany at one point received something like 700,000 refugees from the ex-Yugoslavia. I can't imagine Switzerland received a comparable number, but that's what 10% would amount to.
1092. PincherMartin - Jan. 22, 1999 - 3:39 PM PT
DanDillon --
"Any clue where this Tony Barber got his information?"
None whatsoever.
1093. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 23, 1999 - 2:18 AM PT
I'm going to continue here with some information I've been posting in the International thread on Languages of the World (and at the same time changing the topic for this thread). If you're interested in any of the background, please check out that thread.
1094. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 23, 1999 - 2:21 AM PT
And please ignore the grammar in that last post.
1095. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 23, 1999 - 2:53 AM PT
Austric Languages
This may get a bit convoluted here, but please bear with me (if you have any interest, that is)... I have some rather interesting things to point out here.
As you may have noticed if you looked at the chart I created in Message #1087, there are 17 phyla which include virtually all the languages of the world. One of these phyla is the Austric Phylum. In fact, it is the one with the most languages of any phylum (leave it to me to start with the most complex one).
The Austric phylum, as the chart I linked to above shows, includes 1175 languages in four families: Miao/Yao, Austro-Asiatic, Daic, and Austronesian. These families are not particularly closely related. In fact, their relationships have only been confirmed in the past 20 years.
Let's start with the simplest of these families. Have a look at this chart of the Miao Yao family. The family consists of 4 languages in two branches. Only one of the languages is well known, that being Miao (more commonly known as Hmong), due to large numbers of refugees emigrating to the United States.
[continued]
1096. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 23, 1999 - 2:56 AM PT
[continued]
The next family, Austro-Asiatic, has been the subject of some discussion in the International thread recently, so I have prepared this chart to show some of the languages of the group. This chart shows the Western, or Munda, branch of the family, concentrated in India. This branch was the subject of the recent discussions. The other branch of the family, the Mon-Khmer branch, is much more populous, and includes two well-known national languages (Vietnamese and Khmer) as well as other important regional languages such as Khasi and Mon. The Mon-Khmer group is depicted in this chart.
The third family of the Austric group is the Daic family, which is grouped with Austronesian in the Austro-Tai Super-family (as in the earlier chart. I have no idea of where the Lati-Gelao languages are spoken, but the other branch has two well-known languages among its 55 languages. To give you an idea of how complex this classifying gets, these languages are in the Austric phylum, Austro-Tai super-family, Daic family, Li-Kam-Tai group, Be-Kam-Tai subgroup, Tai branch, and Southwestern sub-branch. This sub-branch, which contains 18 languages, includes two national languages: Thai and Lao (Laotian).
Next: the main thrust of my efforts, a look at the Austronesian family (including a few surprises).
1097. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 23, 1999 - 10:39 AM PT
According to Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, genetic evidence lends support to the linguistic evidence that the Basques were a proto-European people. The Basques have an unusually high frequency of Rh- in their population -- on the order of 30%. By contrast, all other European populations, from the Irish to the Russians, exhibit only 10-15% Rh-.
[Rh is a substance found in the blood of some people. Those who have it are designated Rh+ and those who lack it, Rh-.]
1098. FreeToChoose - Jan. 23, 1999 - 10:58 AM PT
I also note that the article claims that Serbo-Croat is the third most spoken language, not the first language of the third most populous group (I'm probably botching the terms). My guess is that English rates higher in terms of numbers of speakers, although it may not be the first language of many people. Having said that, I was surprised how many people were not able to converse in English. Perhaps parochially, I thought it would be rare.
Does anyone have any sense whether this person (Barber) knows what he is talking about?
1099. PincherMartin - Jan. 23, 1999 - 1:38 PM PT
FreeToChoose --
"Having said that, I was surprised how many people were not able to converse in English. Perhaps parochially, I thought it would be rare.
Does anyone have any sense whether this person (Barber) knows what he is talking about?"
English is spoken by more people in Switzerland than Serbo-Croat; I am sure of that. I think Barber meant Serbo-Croat was the third most spoken language as a *first language*. This is still very hard for me to believe. The article was an extensive piece in the _Financial Times_, however.
1100. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 24, 1999 - 5:17 AM PT
PE:
Interesting note on the Basques, which confirms the value of the genetic evidence. Where do the Basques relate to other groups on Cavalli-Sforza's classifications? The charts I have seen don't include the Basques. Perhaps the genetic data can relate the Basques to other isolates or linguistic groups, as has been proposed.